I confess, I wasn’t aware of this Jonathan Pie person prior to this video, but it’s a keeper.

Pie, a faux news reporter played by Tom Walker, is shown in what appears to be a “hot mic” type moment prior, apparently, to going on to do his serious news reporting. This is the guy’s angle for his biting and insightful political satire, and he’s good at it.

His latest gem is making the internet rounds and for good reason. He rails against the left, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, SJW’s, and he manages to say everything we’ve been saying here for months.

Calling us “deplorables,” racists, fascists, Islamaphobes, and whatever else was not going to win Hillary any votes, and it sure wasn’t going to make us sit down and shut up.

Pie also has some choice words for the precious progressive snowflakes who are perpetually offended and begging for safe spaces in which to hide from divergent opinions.

The reason I think Sanders would have done better is that he would have held the progressive vote that Hillary got, and added a lot of the disgruntled anti-Washington-BS vote that Trump locked up. And I don’t think his open socialism would have turned off nearly as many “middle” voters as I’d hope it would.

But of course I could be wrong.

I just don’t see an electorate where the candidates’ positions on the issues were decisive. The left voted on virtue signaling and tribalism and the right voted on sick-of-the-crap. Which, of course, is why policy issues really, really, really ought to be decided in Congress. But that’s an argument for another day.

The Right was interested in Trump because he was the only candidate even willing to acknowledge that the crime wave pouring over America’s southern border is a problem. And, unlike the generic stuff—”poverty” or “spending” or “crime” or “inequality”—it’s a problem which won’t be addressed by pearl-clutching. It’s something which can tackled—and decisively—by one man in the Oval Office. And the only choice for that man was Trump. There was no #2 option.

The Right was interested in Trump because he was the only candidate even willing to acknowledge that the crime wave pouring over America’s southern border is a problem. And, unlike the generic stuff—”poverty” or “spending” or “crime” or “inequality”—it’s a problem which won’t be addressed by pearl-clutching. It’s something which can tackled—and decisively—by one man in the Oval Office. And the only choice for that man was Trump. There was no #2 option. [/quote]

There is absolutely no way that building a giant wall is going to stave off the immigration issue; a fact that history has clearly shown (Hadrians wall, The Great Wall of China & Masada are some great examples, although the last one was a siege, but still). People are going to get in get in whether we want them to or not. No, the true issue is that the whole process of becoming a citizen is fraught with so many hurdles at this point, it’s a monumental task to even start it. What’s more, previous administrations have done a swimming job of pandering to corporate interests and allowing them to export jobs to foreign countries instead of forcing them to invest in US growth. That’s how you get shoes costing $5 to make, but selling for $125. And then you look at how much the CEO makes vs the person out on the floor, and it becomes clear that the only people making out, really, are the policy makers/Execs. (Might I add that Snopes just Fact Checked:True on Obama being the president with the highest number of deportations during his presidency)

The idea that we’re going to stop crime or eliminate poverty is a laughable farce, at best. It’s not going to happen. Why? Explain how one would go about preventing crime amongst 340 million people and I’ll show you a Stalinistic police state. The best we, as a society, can hope to do is to provide everyone the same opportunities as everyone else. But to do that, we have to ignore gender and race (which clearly hasn’t happened yet).

You also mention that there wasn’t a second option, but I argue that, given Trumps background, there wasn’t really ANY options. Electing Donald Trump is exactly the same as electing someone like Jeff Skiling; the man has the business ethics of a weasel! I mean, he’s bankrupted four companies and yet he, personally, is worth $3.7Bil. HTF did that even happen?

The biggest problem we have, as far as politics goes, is that the politicians just regurgitate the same rhetoric at every election and then do wtf they want to once they sit down at their desk.

Lastly, I’d like to add that the Greatest presidents in US history are ones that pushed forward key progressive/ liberal concepts (Emancipation Proclomation, the usage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, EO 9981, to name a few). Be they Democratic or Republican, they all worked for the best interests of those that elected them. (Obama is currently polled by scholars at 17/43 while GW Bush comes in at a tepid 34/43 as per current aggregate from the APSA).

It occurs to me, after I just posted, the irony of electing a Businessman such as Trump to office and then hoping he’ll fix our immigration issues. It’d be like electing Henry Ford to office and hoping for equality.

But in the end… Bernie sold out. Sad for him in a way as the DEMe as with the GOPe was so up their own rear ends they could see or care for the really hurting people… forgotten by the elite and special interests sucking up to snowflakes. There are two lonely figures here… Sanders and Cruz. Sanders could have lead to the reformation of the Dems and Cruz… if he had been the Reagan type happy warrior.. could have “lost” and won it big at the Supremes. The crucible found neither to have any gold in them. Hopefully, Jefferson’s revolution once and a while is a good thing is possibly here…. the real risk is the Left pushing it too far to stop what is needed.

Thing is, if this election had been Trump Vs Sanders, Trump would have run a very different campaign. So its hard to say in hindsight, because what you are really saying is Sanders would have won if it had been Trump vs Hillary.

I don’t remember much from grade school, but I DO remember my female civics teacher telling the class that “Communism was the perfect political system, but Russia just had some bad people running it.” This was at the height of the cold war.

That’s an ironic statement. The reason Socialism always fails is because of people. Humans are corrupt, and socialism has very little safeguards against that. It’s the main reason it keeps failing – its advocates don’t realize they are building a foundation on sand. And that’s why socialism will always fail.

And isn’t it funny how the “though leaders” of the People, like Bernie Sanders, always wind up with 3 multi-million dollar houses? While Boxer gets traded to the glue factory after a lifetime of selfless labor for the Party?

On the bright side, the FB comments show the Lefties are still in denial. Please, lets keep them that way. I prefer my chewtoys marinated in ignorance and bigotry.

So I’m telling all my lib friends they were right all along: “Yes, it was because we hate women. We really are the racist sexist homophobes you thought we were. We really are toothless rednecks sleeping with our sister in our doublewide, dreaming of nuking Mecca. Murica! Yea Haw!”

See ya in 8 years. Meantime, here is another “study” reassuring you on how smart and superior you surely must be. Baste away baby!

Trying to interject into this the total disconnect of David Remnick in The New Yorker and his epic rank against Trump. Here is an author who on one hand can pen a great review of the fall of the Soviet Union (Lenin’s Tomb) yet fawns over an old guard Brezhnev clone in Hillary Clinton and her Dem Party that displays so many of the traits of the Communist Party in Russia. Trump has his faults but I doubt he would pick off a vulnerable dictator we had agreements with just to show her street cred and in turn destabilize and destroy a nation (Libya)….as Hillary cackled, “we came. we saw, he died” and then “what difference does it make” to letting Americans die… To the Left… I have only one question… “R U Nuts??”

“We’re told that President Clinton (like Mrs. Clinton and some other Dems) thinks that Trump would be a formidable opponent in the general election, and that Dems are in a form of denial if they dismiss Trump as a joke who would be easily defeated in November. President Clinton, like others, thinks that Trump has his finger on the pulse of the electorate’s mood and that only a well-financed, concerted campaign portrayed [sic] him as dangerous and bigoted will win what both Clintons believe will be a close November election. ”

“We’re told that President Clinton (like Mrs. Clinton and many other Dems) thinks the single greatest weapon against Trump is Trump’s own instinct to make outrageous, divisive, even hateful comments that can come across as unpresidential. He, Mrs. Clinton, and the campaign all agree that they will need to seize on opportunities to paint Trump as extremist and recklessly impulsive. ”

The Clintons themselves decided to AVOID a policy discussion to the extent possible, in favor of a campaign of slander.

“The Clintons themselves decided to AVOID a policy discussion to the extent possible, in favor of a campaign of slander.”
One of the reasons the slander wasn’t that effective on Trump, was that he was a known element. Because of his reality show, people had an idea of who he was. The over the top slander was outside peoples experience of him on his show. They would probably been more effective if they just slandered him with the truth. When Mitt Romney ran, he wasn’t that well known nationally to voters who don’t follow politics. Obama’s team spent the whole summer defining Mitt, and Mitt sat on his money and didn’t respond. I think this was the biggest mistake that campaign made (there were others)

I saw this from another source last night and couldn’t stop watching it. I don’t usually watch long videos but I actually watched this one twice in a row and almost a third time. So amazingly spot on I can’t believe it came from someone on the other side of the aisle. Thanks for posting this and I heartily recommend everyone sending this to anyone on the left that you know that still has a sliver of open-mindedness or soul left. We would all benefit if they figured this out. And soon.

This video has a lot of entertainment value. No new substance, but it shows a well-made youtube video is worth 1,000 op-eds.

“The left won the culture wars.”

That’s true, and it seems to have had a devastating effect on the white working class, especially.

If a short video like this can have such a strong effect on you, imagine the effect that a non-stop barrage of pop-culture movies, TV, and music which mock and ridicule the traditional values of average people, while normalizing, if not celebrating, behaviors and attitudes largely regarded as dysfunctional in the recent past, has on these people, especially their children.

Who wants to feel like a square constantly struggling to swim upstream against the swift stream? And if you don’t have much ability in articulating your apprehensions and misgivings about the messages of the media and pop-culture, how dispiriting can that be, especially for a teenager or young adult?

As a parent, I know I’m on the losing side of the culture war. In my early adulthood, you might’ve even said I liberally partook of many of the pleasures and instant gratifications the other side championed and offered. Wink, wink.

But as a parent, I am the loyal opposition. I’m sure my kids know it is not the truth when I tell them I did not do drugs and the like when I was a young man. They laugh and try to make me admit it, and I laugh back and will admit to nothing. There is some untruthiness in art, and parenting is part art. They might not know it, but they want stability and an adult figure at the helm (no matter how silly he may be at times.)

Tim Groseclose, formerly of UCLA and now Professor of Economics at George Mason U, has written extensively on mainstream media bias, quite ingeniously empirically quantifying it better than anyone else has been able to do.

His bottom line conclusion is that if all bias were to be removed from the mainstream media, America would vote more like the state of Texas.

If that’s true, and admittedly that’s a large “if,” then how could the left ever win if it weren’t for shaming and shutting down conservative opinion in the public arena? Something made much easier via the left’s victory in the culture wars. If media bias were not rampant and the left did not demonize and delegitimize conservative opinion in public wherever they could (especially public education, and double especially higher education), how could they ever hope to win electorally?

So, yes, the left did to some degree elect Donald Trump. But they’ll have to keep reverting to the same playbook because that is all they have. The truth has a conservative bias.

They can be quite effective in their strong-arming of the truth and reality to fit their narrative. But, in the end, the truth will win.

And I won’t have to lie to my kids.

LukeHandCool (who, in his own defense, would remind everyone that Luke would be said to be heartless if he hadn’t been a lefty before the age of 30. Now he’s over 30 and has a brain and lies to his kids. But he has fun doing it)

Just like the character in this clip, I can’t say these things in front of my friends or I’ll get f*cking lynched. My partner and I can say these things to each other, thank goodness, but I can’t tell anyone in my social circle that both of us voted Trump.